Can the PM fire anyone? How much hubris is in that tank?

Lawrence Martin is the author of 10 books, including six national bestsellers. His most recent, Harperland, was nominated for the Shaughnessy Cohen award. His other works include two volumes on Jean Chrétien, two on Canada-U.S. relations and three books on hockey.

It was one of the miniest of mini shuffles. Just when the Conservatives had everyone thinking that big changes would be made to his inner sanctum, Stephen Harper went the timbit route, replacing the departing Bev Oda with Julian Fantino and moving Bernard Valcourt into Fantino’s spot.

Is the prime minister capable of firing or disciplining anyone? With some ministers having run aground, with others having been in their posts too long, with senior bureaucrats having blundered, it seemed all too evident that he would wish to turn a page.

It’s good that Ms. Oda was sent packing, though it should have happened much earlier. But that change is hardly enough. In the shuffle yesterday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and Defence Minister Peter MacKay should have been moved, along with others. There should have been changes at the level of parliamentary secretary as well, a case in point being the PM’s very own parliamentary secretary, Dean del Mastro.

But the message Mr. Harper is sending is that no changes are necessary, that everyone is doing a good job. That’s a strange call. If you look at the significant slippage of his government in opinion polls over the last few months, the public does not appear to agree with him.

The Del Mastro case is striking. More information has come to light suggesting the MP’s defence against allegations of violating election spending rules is shot full of holes. This is serious business for an MP occupying such a close seat to the prime minister. It is serious business because of the wider context which sees the government facing allegations of electoral fraud in several ridings.

For most prime ministers, a basic practice when a senior member of the government is under investigation is for he or she to be relieved of their duties until such time as the investigation is complete. If they are cleared, all well and good. They resume their work. Mr. Harper has chosen not to go this route. Maybe he knows something we don’t. But if he doesn’t and if Mr. Del Mastro is formally charged, it will not look good.

The public has the right to expect changes in the ranks of the senior bureaucracy as well. Should there not be accountability, for example, for senior public servants who have been involved with the F-35 follies or the Afghan detainees controversy and who earn hefty salaries from taxpayers?

A long awaited report on the Afghan detainees affair recently condemned the government for stonewalling an investigation into it. The report by the Military Police Complaints Commission revealed how for almost two years running the government refused to turn over records which would allow the commission to do its job. “The doors were basically slammed shut on document disclosure.”

Who did the slamming and what is being done about it? How about the reports of the Auditor-General and the parliamentary budget officer condemning the government’s reporting on cost estimates of the F-35 fighter jets? If not Mr. MacKay, does anyone pay a price?

The Conservatives are trailing the NDP in many recent polls. A survey by Ekos has them down to 29 percent which represents a fall of ten percent since the election in May of last year. One might suspect the government’s occupying the moral lowground has something to do with the decline. Harper evidently doesn’t think so. His approach to ethical transgressions appears not to have changed since his becoming, last spring, the first prime minister in history to be found in contempt of parliament.

Given the way he blew that off, given the example he has set, it is difficult, one would assume, for him to impose high standards of ethics on others.

What kind of message is being sent to the public when so many in the Conservative government are not held to account for their actions? What is it about Mr. Harper that makes it so difficult for him to show a degree of contrition or humility that would sit so well with the public? How much hubris is in that tank?

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

More from iPolitics

Author

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.